Together Housing Association Limited (202220628)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220628

Together Housing Group

29 August 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s responses to:
1. Snags in the property.
2. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
3. The formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has shared ownership of the property with the landlord. The property is a three bedroom house and was purchased by the resident in February 2022. When purchased, the property was still within its defect period, which ended February 2023.
Before the property was handed over to the resident, the landlord collated a list of snags it had found. The list included a total of 31 issues and was provided to the resident when she completed on the property.
On 2 and 22 March 2022, the resident reported additional snags she had identified in the property. Included in the snags found between February and March 2022, were issues with the vinyl flooring in the property, the kitchen units and decoration in the property.
When writing to the landlord about the additional snags found on 22 March 2022, the resident provided it with an update on the status of the snags that had been raised prior, and requested the landlord follow up with the developer about them.
The following day, the landlord raised an order to the developer for the additional snags reported on 22 March 2022. It also contacted the developer for an update on the snags previously raised. The landlord agreed to give an update to the resident once it heard back from the developer.
On 29 March 2022, the resident was provided with appointment dates for the developer to attend to the snags she raised on 22 March 2022. On 31 March 2022, the resident chased the landlord about whether the developer had come back to it about addressing issues raised with the vinyl flooring in the bathroom, as she had only been given a date for the developer to attend the kitchen floor. The resident also asked if the developer had provided the landlord, a date when it would address the snags reported in February 2022, as she was of the understanding that they were meant to be addressed by 17 February 2022 and had not been.
The landlord responded the same day, apologised and sought an update from the developer. It also advised that it had asked the contractor to contact the resident regarding her dissatisfaction with the time taken to address the defects. On 1 April 2022, the landlord advised the resident that the developer said it would contact her via email and would be in touch regarding an appointment for the vinyl floor work.
On 4 April 2021, the landlord contacted the developer again for an update on the outstanding snags from those it identified in February 2022. The following day, the developer confirmed that the majority of the issues were either completed or had an appointment date for completion. Other issues, the developer informed had been raised to the relevant trades but no appointment dates were provided. From the copies of communication this Service has seen, it not apparent that the landlord and resident were in touch about the snags again following this, until October 2022.
On 28 July 2022, the resident’s neighbour’s child rode their motorbike on the resident’s lawn. The resident reported the incident to the landlord and the police. She also sent footage of the incident to the landlord.
Thereafter and up until 22 August 2022, the resident reported further ASB from her neighbour and sent the landlord video footage as evidence of some of the things reported. She reported the following issues:
1. The neighbour’s dogs had escaped the neighbour’s property while the neighbours smoked marijuana, which woke her up at 1:30am.
2. The neighbour’s dogs escaped from the property and damaged her tree lights.
3. The neighbour/neighbours visitors had parked on her drive and was looking through her property window.
4. The neighbours walking on and loitering on her front garden.
5. Rubbish piling in the neighbours garden.
The police notified the landlord on 24 August 2022, that the incident on 28 July 2022 and been sent to the Youth Offending Team to decide, as the perpetrator was a minor. The same day, after having reviewed the footage sent by the resident between July and August 2022, the landlord wrote to the neighbour with an appointment date for 1 September 2022 to carry out an interview with them.
On 25 August 2022, the resident reported again that the neighbour’s son was smoking marijuana and that their dogs were running around the front lawn, while she was trying to cut it. The resident stated that she did not believe it was coincidental that the neighbours found reasons to be outside when she was. She asked the landlord for an update on what was happening and explained the negative impact living next door to her neighbour was having on her and her child. When speaking, she noted that the situation was ruining her life, her mental health, work and her parenting, as she did not feel safe in the property.
The landlord responded to the resident on 30 August 2022, confirmed that it reviewed the footage she sent and agreed to provide her an update once it had visited the neighbour.
On the same day, the resident informed the landlord that the neighbour had visit her to ask about the letter that it had sent with the appointment for the interview. The resident advised that on attending, the neighbour had told her, in reference to the landlord’s letter than she would ‘regret this.’ The neighbour’s child also attended to the resident’s property on a separate occasion on the same day. This visit was reported to the police.
The resident called the landlord, on 31 August 2022, and informed that she was fearful for her safety. The landlord advised the resident to call the police if there were any incidents. The resident raised concern about the pre tenancy checks the landlord carried out for the neighbour and it responded that it checked applicants in line with its policies and as best it could. As well as the report about the visits from the neighbours the day before, the resident informed the landlord that more teenagers had moved into the neighbour’s property recently. The landlord reiterated that it would provide an update to her following its visit to the neighbour.
The landlord attended to the neighbour’s property to interview them on 1 September 2022. It discussed the various issues the resident reported between July and August 2022. It then issued the neighbour a warning letter, on 5 September 2022. The reason for it doing so, was due to the evidence it had received of the neighbour’s son causing damage to the resident’s lawn and evidence it had of the household members and visitors intimidating, harassing and trespassing the resident’s property. It confirmed that during the interview, the neighbour agreed that they, any household members of visitors would not damage or trespass on the resident’s property, would ensure they would bring their dogs in when they started barking and continue to keep their garden clean and tidy.
On the day the landlord issued the warning, it spoke with the resident and provided her with an update. During the call, the resident reported that in the days following the landlord’s interview with the neighbour, the neighbour’s child had verbally abused her and had been smoking marijuana. The landlord asked her to send any evidence she had of the incidents. The resident informed that she was speaking with another member of staff about selling her property back to the landlord. The resident also made clear, her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s action against the neighbour. In response, the landlord explained if evidence of further incidents were provided, it could look to consider taking further action. It advised the resident that the neighbour agreed that they were open to mediation however, the resident did not wish to do take part in this.
The resident informed the landlord during the call that she was worried about leaving her child in the property whilst she was at work. The landlord advised it was the resident’s choice if she was willing to allow her child to stay home alone or not. It advised that it was doing what it could based on the evidence it had received up until that point and could not pre-empt what may or may not happen.
On 7 September 2022, the neighbour’s child went to the resident’s property, kicked her front door several times, threw an object towards the resident’s front window, pulled down the external down pipe from house and kicked the external lighting in the resident’s lawn. The resident reported the incident to the police and the landlord and sent footage showing the incident. In addition to this, an operative of the landlord, who witnessed the incident reported what they had seen take place on the day.
The following day, the resident sent the landlord additional footage after the damage was done. She asked the landlord to provide an update that day as she wanted her daughter to be able to return home. In the footage the landlord reviewed, it confirms hearing the neighbour state ‘it’s because of the letter.’ This service understands the letter referred to, is the warning letter issued on 5 September 2022.
The neighbourhood officer after having reviewed the evidence of the incident the day before, consulted with its ASB team, on 8 September 2022. Following this, the decision was made to issue the neighbour a second warning. The landlord also agreed to follow up with the police and agreed to contact the resident to advise of its intended action. The officer also discussed the incident with the neighbour on 8 September 2022, and notified them on 15 September 2022, that a second tenancy warning would be issued to them in light of the evidence received of further incidents.
The homeownership team spoke with the resident on 8 September 2022. Following this, it sent her an email with an update on the actions taken by the neighbourhood officer to consult with the ASB team and the police. It advised the resident would get an update about the ASB matters the following week. The homeownership team acknowledged that during the phone call, the resident said that she was off work with stress and could not find alternative accommodation and was fearful and distressed. It advised her to contact the police if she received further threats or felt in danger. It also arranged for the resident to be sent information on the process to sell her property.
The landlord contacted the police for an update on 20 September 2022. On the same day, it wrote to the resident, explaining that it was awaiting a response from the police and that the ASB team was due to meet the neighbour and issue a second warning. It asked the resident if she had received an update from the police in the meantime, or if there had been any further incidents of ASB. The landlord asked if the resident felt she required further support with how she was feeling following the ASB.
From 20 September 2022 to 26 September 2022, the parties were in communication regarding the landlord’s email dated 20 September. The resident emphasized the significance the ASB was having on hers and her child’s life and questioned why the neighbour had not been evicted. She reported that she had footage of the neighbour’s son returning to the property and smiling at the damage they had done on 7 September 2022. The resident confirmed that the landlord’s contractor had since attended to repair the down pipe that was pulled off but did not complete the work satisfactorily. The resident advised that she would welcome any support the landlord could provide.
After the ASB team visit the neighbour, it issued a second warning letter and an action plan. The landlord notified the resident on 26 September 2022 that it had done so and advised that if there were further incidents, the resident could send it evidence. The landlord said in response to the resident’s concerns about how she and her child were feeling that she should correspond with her GP and if available, the police victim support team. In response, the resident expressed that she could not live next to the neighbour and was going to seek legal advice.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 October 2022 to query if there was an update on the situation with the neighbour since its last contact. The resident confirmed that the situation remained the same. She said that she felt the landlord had been dismissive on the phone, when she reported the second incident and said she felt unsupported. This service understands the incident referred to, is that which took place on 7 September 2022. She advised that she did not understand why the neighbours actions to date, had not been enough to warrant further action. She advised that the weekend prior, the neighbour had been verbally abusive to her, continued to smoke weed and their dogs still barked. The landlord was apologetic but reiterated it felt it had acted appropriately in response to the reports. The landlord agreed to speak with the neighbour and follow up with the police, as it had not received an update from them.
The landlord followed up with the police on 17 October 2022, and was informed that an interview with the neighbour would be taking place and would be referred to the Youth Offending Team to decide. Around 20 October 2022, the resident sent the landlord audio evidence of the neighbour’s dogs barking. The landlord reviewed them and contacted the neighbour on 11 November 2022 to request a visit.
On 21 October 2023, the resident was in contact with the developers contractor regarding remediation work to address the snags identified in the vinyl flooring in the kitchen, as she was expecting to have the flooring fitted that day and this did not happen. The contractor rescheduled an appointment for 27 October 2022.
On 21 October 2022, the resident also contacted a staff member in the development team staff and asked who she could escalate her complaints about the landlord to. The team asked for more information about the issues and she confirmed that the issues related to outstanding snags and the ASB. The development team forwarded the resident’s email to the homeownership team.
Following this, the landlord sent the resident a complaint acknowledgment on 1 November 2022, which advised she was to expect a response within 10 working days. The resident advised that there was more to her complaint and noted that the amount her personal life being disrupted by the ASB was also a part of her complaint. She advised that she would provide additional information and evidence in support of her complaint on or around 6 November 2022, but there is no indication that this further information was provided. On 8 November 2022, the resident confirmed that she had instructed a solicitor to act on her behalf. She noted she felt the landlord was intentionally providing minimal help and she did not have the energy to deal with it. The resident stated that she was mentally “at breaking point” and was “just too tired.”
The resident contacted the landlord, on 9 November 2022 and explained that her property was falling into further disrepair as a result of the damage to the drainpipe by the neighbour. She also asked the landlord to confirm the excess fee for the insurance so she could make a claim. She sent images of her roof that was recently found to have been damaged during the incident on 7 September 2022.
The resident spoke with the landlord about the complaint, on 11 and 14 November 2022 during the calls, the resident confirmed that as a result of the incident on 7 September 2022, there were scratches on her door and the drain repair remained outstanding. In addition, the resident the resident reported that she noticed that tiles on the roof were displaced and there was a gap where the facia board was pulled away from the wall when the neighbour pulled the down pipe. The resident noted that internally, water was coming through the ceiling in the hallway which she believed was the result of the noted issue with the roof. The landlord raised a job for its technicians to review the issues raised. With the roof, it asked that check whether the displaced tiles and facia boards, were the result of the ASB incident or the wind. The resident noted that she had spent her time to discuss the roof damage but felt that insurance could have been used or the developer could have been asked to attend and assess the roof.
Between 11 and 18 November 2022, the landlord was in contact with the neighbour following video evidence it received from the resident on 24 October 2022. It discussed the allegations with the neighbour, who explained actions they had been taking regarding the dogs according to the action plan and denied the use of cannabis.
From 18 up to 21 November 2022, the resident continued to report disturbance from the resident letting their dogs out during the day, the neighbour’s household members/visitors on her drive. She sent the landlord video footage correlating with these reports. The resident also reported that the neighbour’s child had made retching sounds towards her child and sent it a video depicting this. She continued to relay that she no longer wished to live in the property.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident on 28 November 2022. In relation to the defects, it said that it appreciated that having to refer matters back to the developer was frustrating but explained it was required to do so. It reassured that it was unsure as to whether there were outstanding defects as it did not have access to the developer’s system however, said it had asked someone to provide an update on this. It confirmed in relation to the damage to the residents property following the incident on 7 September 2022, that an appointment had been scheduled for it to assess the damage. The service is aware that appointments were scheduled for the 1 and 2 December 2022 for although, it is unclear from the information if they were attended to.
In respect of the complaint about its response to the reports of ASB, the landlord advised that it found that the correct procedures were followed and would continue to do this if any further reports were received. It confirmed that it completed pre tenancy checks before it offered the neighbour the property. The landlord said that it was concerned about the resident’s wellbeing but acknowledged information it received that the resident had been referred to occasional therapy. The landlord acknowledged that it could not provide the outcome the resident sought from the complaint and said that it understood why she was upset. It offered to visit the resident so that it could discuss her concerns and recommended that she reported any new incidents of ASB through its central switchboard number.
In December 2022, the resident was in contact with the landlord and indicated that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage two. She also chased the landlord, about the outstanding repair to the roof believed to be resulting in water ingress to her hallway. She noted that the issue had been raised on 30 October 2022 and black mould was now appearing on the affected wall. The landlord responded to the resident on 15 December 2022, asking for dates she wished to have a meeting with it regarding the stage two complaint. it confirmed what would be discussed in the meeting. This included:
1. An update on the ASB case and what was classified as ASB.
2. Selling the property due to the ASB, the impact of this on the resident and the implications of having a history of ASB from neighbours when selling.
3. Breakdown of the costs due to the damage from the ASB, for the police investigation.
4. Defect issues past and present, that had caused distress.
5. The landlord not dealing with matters in a timely manner.
The landlord said that it had no control over the timeframe that the developer took to complete the snags but said that its project manager for developments would chase the outstanding defects and hoped they would be addressed by February 2023, the end of the defect period. It noted the developer had a defect meeting due with the resident therefore, anything outstanding would need to be addressed within said meeting. The landlord stated that the matter in relation to the water ingress to the internal wall was also raised to the developer to address. It advised it would provide an update on this once received. The landlord confirmed that the roofer attended the week before, to complete the work to the roof, including the fascia board. It confirmed that after inspecting the door, it did not have paint specialist but was going to ask the developer if it could source a contractor through them and if not, look elsewhere. It agreed to provide an update at a later date.
From the stage one response was issued, the resident continued to report issues about the neighbour. Specifically, that they were smoking marijuana, letting their dogs out and had left bulk waste outside the property. the landlord informed her that it previously spoke with the neighbour about the reports of marijuana smoking and they denied it. It asked the resident to provide any evidence she had of the smoking so that it could challenge this with the neighbour. The landlord also visited the neighbour regarding the bulk waste and advised the neighbour to address this.
In response to the landlord’s request to meet to discuss the stage two complaint, the resident confirmed, on 20 December 2022, that she did not want to do so and asked that it provided a stage two response based on its understanding of her complaint. The landlord acknowledged this and explained that as the resident confirmed she did not want to meet, its 20 working day timeframe to provide the response started from that date although, it agreed to try and issue the response on or around 11 January 2022.
The landlord provided its final response to the complaint on 19 January 2023. It said:
1. In respect of the defects, it believed that all had been completed with the exception of roof vents. It noted the resident had emailed the developer to inform that she would prefer this was not done but, encouraged her to reconsider.
2. It considered that it had addressed the ASB the resident reported in line with its policy and process and issued a formal warning to the neighbours. It said that the case was still open and that the resident should continue to send evidence. It acknowledged however, that although it was satisfied with how it dealt with the matter, the resident remained distressed about the situation.
3. It was happy to arrange a visit to review videos sent, as not all of the ones it had been sent had content. It suggested the resident also download the noise app and explained this could assist in establishing whether the dogs were barking excessively. It said it apologised if the app had not been mentioned sooner but noted it would not have made a difference in relation to the case as the dog barking was not considered to be actionable.
4. It was concerned about the impact the matter was having on the resident and reoffered a meeting with the neighbourhood manager. It acknowledged that the resident did not wish to do this before but said it hoped she would reconsider.
5. That it wanted to reoffer the resident mediation with her neighbour. it explained that it was independent and that it would support the resident throughout the process.
6. It had considered the other information relating to the ongoing communication with the sales team in relation to the sale of the property and was unable to see how it could help, but said it felt a further meeting would help to confirm it.
7. It apologised for the delay in the response to the complaint and offered the resident £75 to acknowledge the delay in the complaint response and the impact it had.

Post complaints process

Following the complaints process, the resident continued to report her neighbours were on her drive, did not move the bulk items reported in December and had added to this. The resident also made reports of noise nuisance and provided the landlord with video evidence to show this. She advised that the neighbour’s garden was also unkempt. The landlord addressed this with the neighbour and the ASB case remained opened.
The resident also put her property up for sale however, had to withdraw from this process as she was unable to arrange an onward move.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the reported defects.

The landlord has provided this service with information about the defects process that it has with the developer of the property. This agreement indicates that it is the developer and landlord who are to make arrangements for access to complete defects.
When the resident raised queries with the landlord about the status of the defects, the landlord referred this to the developer for a response, which was appropriate as the matter was with the developer to address. The landlord also made the necessary arrangements to raise the additional defects the resident had identified, with the developer.
When the resident raised concerns about the time taken for the developer to complete the snags first identified, the landlord took steps to arrange for the developer to contact the resident. As the developer was responsible for the arrangement of any necessary works, it was reasonable to ask that they contact the resident to provide this information.
In the response to complaint, the landlord explained the process in place for addressing the defects period and it recognised the resident’s frustrations in having to wait for it to communicate with the developer to get responses.
It is acknowledged that there were delays in the completion of the defects however, this is not due to a service failure on the landlord’s part. The evidence provided, demonstrates that the landlord when required to by the resident, made the necessary enquiries with the developer for information about the items of repair it was responsible for addressing.

Response to the reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure explains that the landlord takes a tenure neutral approach and works in partnership with other agencies to tackle ASB.
The policy explains that the landlord aims to prevent ASB by doing several things, including taking careful consideration when accepting housing applications from those who have been proven to commit ASB. It explains that all complaints of ASB received, are assessed and prioritised according to the type, severity and impact to the customer.
Its policy provides the following categories and expected response times for incidents as follows:
1. Level 1 – No considered ASB – Incident logged, advice given and no further action.
2. Level 2 – Environmental (untidy gardens, fly tipping) – Response within 10 working days. In the event it is a statutory nuisance, a fire risk or likely to attract vermin, the response time is within 5 working days.
3. Level 3a – Nuisance/drug dealing (where there are no identified risks to the complainant) – Incident logged, report sheets issued to complainant and no further action to be taken until additional evidence received.
4. Level 3 – Nuisance (Harassment, verbal abuse, noise nuisance or drug dealing where risks are identified or evidence has been received) – A response within five working days.
5. Level 4 – Personal (threats, domestic abuse, hate crime) – Response within 1 working day.
ASB cases categorised as either level 3 or level 4, are referred to the landlord’s ASB team for assessment. The same applies in instances where there is a significant and/immediate risk to the complaint or any other parties. All other cases are referred to the neighbourhood officer for investigation.
The ASB policy confirms that there are various actions available to the landlord for investigating and addressing ASB. Among several others, it can interview perpetrators, issue warnings and offer mediation.
Following receipt of the reports between 28 July and 7 September 2022, the landlord took action to issue warnings, which included action plans to the neighbour. The landlord also offered mediation.
The landlord has also demonstrated that it has, taken time to consider the nature of the reports when making the decision on what action to take. Specifically, following the incident on 7 September 2022, which was particularly violent in nature and directed to the resident’s home, the landlord immediately referred the matter to its ASB team for guidance on what action it could pursue against the neighbour. Its decision to issue the second warning, while disappointing for the resident, was thoroughly considered with its ASB team in line with its policy. The landlord also provided the appropriate advice that the resident contact the police, in the event she felt threatened or in any danger.
It is important to note that while we have found that the action the landlord decided to take against the neighbour in the circumstances was reasonable, the resident’s disappointment with the action, is recognised. Pursuing legal action to end a tenancy on the basis of ASB is considered a last resort and something where a landlord must be able to evidence to the court, that other interventions have failed to bring an end to the behaviour. In this case, at the time of the incident on 7 September 2022, the landlord had only recently issued one warning to the neighbour. It liaised with its ASB team, who confirmed that it did not at that time, have a case to pursue legal action in relation to the neighbour’s tenancy. In deciding what action to take, there is evidence that the landlord has also taken into consideration the needs and requirements of the neighbour, the details of such cannot be disclosed here but, this Service is satisfied the landlord followed its policy when deciding on the action to take.
While the actions taken against the neighbour are considered to be justified, this service has found that it took the landlord a lengthy period of time to issue the warnings following the events.
After the incident on 28 July 2022, it took the landlord five weeks to interview the neighbour and issue the warning, despite it having received evidence of the incident shortly after it happened. It is acknowledged that in that five week period, the landlord received further reports and evidence from the resident, including that the neighbour had visited her in retaliation to the landlord’s request for an interview. The evidence confirms that the landlord raised those additional issues as part of the interview and agreed an action plan with the neighbour. One of those agreed actions was that the neighbour would ensure that they, their family members or visitors to their property would not damage or trespass on the resident’s property.
Within two days of the warning and agreed actions being confirmed in a letter to the neighbour, the agreed actions were breached during the incident on 7 September 2022. The evidence of the incident was received on the same day and within a day, the landlord referred the case to its ASB team who confirmed a second warning was to be issued. The landlord also spoke with the neighbour about the incident within a day. But it did not attend to interview the neighbour until two weeks after the incident and the warning itself was not issued to the neighbour until almost five weeks later after the incident.
During both periods of delay in the landlord issuing the two warnings to the neighbour, the landlord records do not indicate that it was providing the resident with regular updates on the actions it intended to take. Following the incident on 28 July 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident once the warning was issued. But it is expected that it would offer an explanation as to why it had taken such a long time to act on the report and provide her with the update. Following the incident on 7 September 2022, the landlord did update the resident on 8 September 2022, that it was contacting the police, but the resident was not notified at that time that the landlord would also be issuing a second warning. There is evidence that the landlord decided to issue a second warning, the same day this update was given. Therefore, it is unreasonable it took the landlord nearly two weeks after this to advise that it was going to issue the second warning. This was not in line with its policy, which explains a form of support to its residents is to provide regular updates even if there is little to no progress on the case.
Prior to the incident on 7 September 2022 and following this, the resident had been expressing how fearful she was to be in the property to the landlord and how the ASB had impacted on her and her child’s life. In addition to this, the ASB was impacting on the resident to the extent where she took steps to begin the sale of her property and had asked the landlord to consider buying the property back from her.
It is considered that the landlord has not taken all reasonable steps to support the resident in the circumstances. Following the initial incident on 28 July 2022, the resident’s distress was added to, when the neighbour and their son visit in retaliation to the interview request the landlord sent in August 2022. The neighbours retaliation following the first warning, was the incident that took place on 7 September 2022. The resident did not only express the impact of these events. This Service has also seen that the resident’s employer also contacted the landlord with concerns.
It is recognised by this Service that the landlord took steps to ask the resident what support she required. The resident was clearly fearful of the neighbour and the landlord had possession of evidence of concerning behaviours by the neighbour’s son. There is no obligation on the landlord to offer alternative accommodation to the resident, but it could have taken into consideration or assessed, whether the resident required immediate protection from the neighbour. The landlord on being aware of the history of the neighbour’s behaviour, including their capability to retaliate against the resident, should have taken some form of risk assessment or, considered whether the resident required protection from the court, in the form of injunctive action or otherwise, when it made the decision to issue the second warning.
As part of its response to the incident on 7 September 2022, the landlord agreed to remedy the damage caused to the down pipe by the neighbour. This was a reasonable decision for it to take in the circumstances as although, it was not its obligation to remedy the damage, its decision to do this was an effort to provide the resident a remedy. Its repairs policy explains that it will aim to complete a repair that does not pose an immediate risk, within 28 days. It attended to address the repair within this timeframe, however, did not complete repairs to a satisfactory standard. When concern about the standard of work completed was raised in September 2022, it took the landlord until December 2022 before it attended to this again, nearly three months later.
The records provided, indicate that the resident first realised the displaced tiles o on the roof and damaged fascia boards between 29 October and early November 2022. Both of which, she suspected were the result of incident on 7 September 2022. The landlord raised an order for these issues to be investigated. The landlord’s internal communications indicate that it accepts that the damage was in fact caused by the incident on 7 September 2022 as opposed to weathering. As it had previously committed to remedy the damage caused to the drainpipe from the same incident, it was reasonable for it incorporate the work to the roof as part of the agreed work. The information provided in the landlord’s update to the resident, on 15 December 2022, suggests that the roof repairs were remedied sometime around 5 December 2022. However, communications between the parties, as recent as June 2023, indicate that the resident notified the landlord that the damage was not fully rectified.
As the landlord took the responsibility for the damage, it is expected that it would have remedied these matters within a reasonable time frame. There was a delay in the repair to the drainpipe and from the evidence provided, it appears that the roof also has not been fully rectified after the landlord agreed to do the work. As the landlord agreed to do the work and the resident raised concern about the standard of the work it initially carried out to the drain, it is a shortcoming that the landlord did not put in place actions to manage those repairs through to completion. This is also particularly because the completion of the repairs was agreed as part of the resolution to the complaint.
The landlord, in its response to the complaint explained that it felt that it took the appropriate action in relation to the reports. This Service has found that the landlord’s actions against the neighbour following the reports were justified and in line with its policy. However, the time the landlord took to complete those actions was not reasonable, and the landlord have not recognised this. The landlord offered to meet with the resident, both during and after investigating the complaint, which although the resident declined, demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to speak with the resident about the ASB from the neighbours. But, without meeting with the resident, it was clear she was fearful of the neighbours and this fear was rational given her experience between July and November 2022 and the ASB she experienced thereafter. The landlord has not in its investigation of the complaint, considered whether it was possible to pursue injunctive action or otherwise as a way to provide the resident with some reassurance to protect her from retaliation or further violence or damage from the neighbours. This is despite the fact that the impact of the situation with the neighbours was such a significant element of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s complaint responses confirmed that it agreed to attend to address the damage to her property as a result of the incident on 7 September 2022. However, it is not apparent that the landlord investigated its handling of the works to the damage as it failed to offer any explanation or apology, for the delay in attending to the drains after the standard of work initially completed was raised as an issue. And the landlord did not provide clear details about what the resident could expect from it in regard to the works it would do. Other than advising that it had booked an appointment.
When a landlord proposes resolutions, it is necessary that it explains to the resident what actions they can expect for it to take to remedy a matter. This also helps the landlord in monitoring the actions through to completion. In this case, the landlord was vague about how it was going to address the damage and when. As of recently, the resident has reported that the roof tiles remain displaced, indicating that the landlord itself have not proactively monitored the repairs it agreed.
After the second warning was issued, the landlord continued to receive reports from the resident about the neighbour’s behaviour. After receipt of reports in October 2022, the landlord spoke with the neighbour about the concerns that had been raised about them and their property. There is no evidence, that the landlord with provided the resident an update on when it did so though. After the landlord spoke with the neighbour in November 2022, it received further reports and evidence of the neighbour’s relatives on the resident’s property. The landlord addressed some of the reports received it from the resident from18 November 2022, with the neighbour. The specific issue of the neighbours trespassing by parking on the resident’s drive in November 2022, despite being evidenced, there is no indication that the landlord took steps at that time, to consult with its ASB about the failure to adhere to the actions agreed or, that it sought to review the action plan it had put in place when it issued the second warning in October 2022.
This service, therefore, finds that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports. This service considers that an award of compensation is appropriate in the circumstances to recognise the delays in the landlord acting, its failure to consider options to prevent the resident being subject to further violence and its lack of efficient updates to the resident about the actions it was taking.
Orders have also been made below, relating to the landlord’s response to future reports of ASB the landlord receives and the repairs it agreed to complete to the damage caused on 7 September 2022, as part of the resolution to the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that at stage one, it will investigate and provided its response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. If the investigation takes longer, it states that it will inform the resident up to date. At stage two, the landlord aims to provide its response within 20 working days of its acknowledgment.
At stage one, the landlord issued its response nine working days outside of the 10 working day timeframe. There is evidence that the parties were in contact about the complaint in this time frame however, the landlord has failed to explain or apologise for the delay in the provision of the stage one response.
It is apparent from the communications between the parties that after the stage one response was issued, the resident confirmed she wished to escalate the complaint further. The specific date this happened, is not clear. But the landlord acknowledged the resident’s wish to pursue a stage two complaint, on 15 December 2022 and invited the resident to meet with it to discuss the complaint.
While not a requirement under its complaints procedure, it was positive that the landlord was willing to meet with the resident to discuss her points of dissatisfaction from the complaint, to inform its stage two response.
Once it received confirmation that the resident did not want to meet, the landlord explained that it would count the 20 working day timeframe, from the day the resident confirmed she did not want to meet with it, that is 20 December 2021. It advised that it was aiming to provide a response before the 20 working days and on 11 January 2022 but provided the response six working days later.
At stage two, the landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in providing its response. The acknowledgement was appropriate, as it did not contact the resident to let her know that it would be delayed on or after 11 January 2022. In addition to this, the landlord also failed to recognise at stage one, that its response was delayed.
It offered the resident £75 compensation for the delay in its response. While it did not acknowledge the delay in the provision of the response at stage one as well, this compensation is considered proportionate to the delays the resident experienced at both stages of the complaints process. This is because the delays on both occasions, were of a short duration and did not require the resident to spend time and trouble pursuing the landlord for the response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the snags.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took the appropriate action to contact the developers to seek updates on the snagging items, when requested by the resident.
In regard to the landlord’s response to the ASB, while the actions taken to issue warnings were in accordance with the landlord’s policy, the time it took to complete those actions after the reports of the significant incidents in July and September 2022, was unreasonable. During the period it did not act, there is no evidence that it kept the resident informed of its intentions to act. It did not recognise this in its investigation of the complaint. Furthermore, the landlord has not shown that it looked into whether it could look to put measures in place to provide the resident with protection against the neighbours, despite it having evidence of the neighbour’s threatening behaviour towards her property, which resulted in damage.
The landlord has not acknowledged all of the delays in its complaints process but its offer of compensation for the delay at stage two, is considered reasonable for the delays overall.

Orders

In recognition of the finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, it is ordered that the landlord pay the resident £350 compensation.
The landlord is to arrange for the payment to be made within four weeks of the date of this report and once paid, it is to provide confirmation to this Service.
The landlord is to attend to the property within four weeks of this report to establish whether the repairs it confirmed it would arrange to the damage to the roof tiles, have been completed satisfactorily:
1. If the repairs have not been completed satisfactorily, the landlord is to confirm to the resident within six weeks, an action plan for completion including what repairs it will complete and when. This is to be provided within six weeks of this report and a copy is to be provided to this Service.
If the repairs to the damage have already been completed, the landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not already done so, it is to pay the resident the £75 compensation it offered, to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report. Once paid, the landlord is to provide confirmation to this service.
If the payment has already been made, the landlord is to confirm to this service.
For any future ASB reports, the landlord is to communicate with the resident in line with the timeframes set out in its policy, what action, if any, it will take in relation to the reported issue and when.